the ryland’s vs fletcher case
Post on 10-Apr-2018
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
1/15
THE RYLANDSVS. FLETCHERCASE
Group 5
Georgia Tate Mario Hylto
Shawna Gray Jennilyn Bur
Yanique Brent-Harris Nicoy Smith
Ewan Reno
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
2/15
WHATISATORT
A civil wrong for which a remedy may be
obtained. Basically a tort is something someone
else did wrong that caused you injury and forwhich you can sue. A tort can be intentional but
is far more likely to result from carelessness
called Negligence.
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
3/15
TYPESOF TORT
Nuisance Public or Private
Negligence
Trespass
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
4/15
THECASE
The defendants, mill owners in the coal mining area of
Lancashire, had constructed a reservoir on their land. The
water broke through the filled-in shaft of an abandoned
coal mine and flooded connecting passageways into the
plaintiff's active mine nearby. In 1865, the trial court found
that the defendants were ignorant of the abandoned mine
shaft and free ofNegligence and decided the case in favor of
the defendants.
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
5/15
THE CASE
In 1866, in appeal by the plaintiffs, the Exchequer
Chamber decided to reverse the lower court and
imposed strict liability on the defendants, but the
case did not readily fit within the existing TORTtheories. No Trespass had occurred since the
premises of plaintiff and defendants did not adjoin;
therefore, the flooding was not direct, nor was it aNuisance, since there was nothing offensive to the
senses and the damage was not continuous or
recurring.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuisancehttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Trespass -
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
6/15
THECASE CONTD
Justice Colin Blackburn, comparing the situation
to trespasses involving cattle and dangerous
animals, declared. The true Rule of Law is, that
the person who for his own purposes brings on
his lands and collects and keeps there anything
likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in
at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is Prima
Facie answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prima+Faciehttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prima+Faciehttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rule+of+Law -
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
7/15
FORESEEABILITY
There is now a further requirement, according to
the House of Lords, that harm of the relevant
type must have been foreseeable
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
8/15
RULINGBYTHEHOUSEOFLORDS
The person who for his own purposes bring on his
own land and collects and keep there anything
likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at
his own peril and if he does not do so is
answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape.
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
9/15
RULING CONTD
Rylands sued on the grounds of Fletchers
negligence. Fletcher himself had not been
negligent as he had no knowledge of the existence
of the shafts. He was not vicariously liable for the
actions of the contractors as they were not his
employees.
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
10/15
o
The case eventually went to the House of Lords on appeal whoupheld the original judgment that Fletcher was liable in tort.
oDuring the appeal Lord Cairns, in agreeing with the above
statement, added the qualification that the rule only applied to a
non-natural use of the land, and not to circumstances where a
substance accumulated naturally on land. The word natural has
since been extended to mean ordinary.(http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20q%20r%20s%20t/Ryl
ands_v_Fletcher.htm)
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
11/15
REMEDIES THEOWNEROFLANDCLOSETO
THEESCAPECANRECOVERDAMAGESFOR:
1. Physical harm to the land itself (as in Rylands
v Fletcher) and to the other property.
2. It is no longer clear if a claimant can recover
for personal injury
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
12/15
DEFENCES
Common Benefit If the source of the danger wasmaintained for the benefit of both theclaimant and defendant, the defendantwill not be liable for its escape
Statutory Authority A statute require a person or body tocarry out a particular activity.Liability of Ryland v Fletcher may be
excluded upon interpretation of thestatute
Default of a claimant If the escape is the fault of theclaimant there will be noliability. Alternatively, theremay be contributory negligence
on the part of the claimant
Act of God
Act of a stranger
Consent of plaintiff
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
13/15
OTHER CASES WHICH HAVE USED RYLANDS
V FLETCHER
Defence does not depend on ownership of land, covers a
variety of offensive and dangerous substances
Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power
Co (1914)
The defendants water mains under a public street burst
and damaged the claimants cable which were also laid
under the street
Held- the defendant was liable under the rule in Rylands
v Fletcher, because the rule was not confined to wrongs
between owners of adjacent land and did not depend on
ownership of land. Here it could be applied to adjacent
chattels
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
14/15
DEFENSEACTOF GOD
Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway Co (1917)
The Corporation in laying out a park, constructed a
concrete paddling pool for children in the bed of a
stream, thereby altering its course and natural flow.
Owing to rainfall of extraordinary violence the stream
overflowed and flooded the railway companys premises.
Held- The House of Lords held that this was an act of
God based on Nicholas v Marsland (1876) which held
that the point at issue was the liability for storing water
in artificial lakes, the point here was interference with
the natural flow
Anyone so interfering must provide even against
exceptional rainfall
-
8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case
15/15
CONCLUSION
The dispute in Rylands vs. Fletcher case concerned escape of
water onto neighbouring land. Later cases in which the
Rylands test was applied involved the escape of all manner of
wastes and materials, extending outwards to a broad range of
inherently dangerous activities considered essential to
modern life. The application and interpretation of the
Rylands rule has been an important step in the development
of legal policy relating to modern industry, risk allocation,
liability and negligence.
top related